Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: simulacrum Date: Jun 9, 2009 4:28pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A BOY AND HIS DOG

I did some looking around and came up with these

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: PA0000452604 / 1989-12-01
Title: A Boy and his dog / produced by Alvey Moore ; directed by L. Q. Jones.
Description: 2 videocassettes : sd., col. ; 3/4 in.
Copyright Claimant: III LQJ, Inc.
Copyright Notice: notice: Third LQJ, Inc.
Date of Creation: 1975
Date of Publication: 1975-04-01
Date in Notice: notice: 1974
Authorship on Application: III LQJ, Inc., employer for hire.
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.


ype of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: PA0000452605 / 1990-03-01
Title: A Boy and his dog / produced by Alvey Moore ; directed by L. Q. Jones.
Description: 2 videocassettes : sd., col. ; 3/4 in.
Copyright Claimant: III LQJ, Inc.
Copyright Notice: notice: Third LQJ, Inc.
Date of Creation: 1982
Date of Publication: 1982-06-01
Date in Notice: notice: 1974
Authorship on Application: III LQJ, Inc., employer for hire.
Previous Registration: Motion picture prev. reg. 1Dec89, PA 452-604.
Basis of Claim: New Matter: new footage added to beginning.
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.

Looks like it may be copyrighted after all
Let me just say I'm not trying to cause any trouble here
I just want to prevent any possible problems for the archive

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jun 9, 2009 5:25pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A BOY AND HIS DOG

I personally would keep the film off Archive because it is clear that at least the producer thinks that the film is not public domain and may cause problems for IA.

The film original film is clearly in the public domain due to the eroneous copyright notice. There are loads of suspect registrations on file at the USCO. In the post 1989 copyright world USCO dutifully filed these types of registrations. In the pre-1989 world they had a special department that looked for erroneous notices and fanciful publication information on the paperwork. There are famous examples:

Night of the living dead / an Image Ten production ; produced by Russell W....
Type of Work: Cancelled Registration
Cancelled Registration Number: PA0000046101
PA reg. cancelled. Published pre ’78 without copyright notice.
Title: Night of the living dead / an Image Ten production ; produced by Russell W. Streiner, Karl Hardiman ; directed by George A. Romero.

Names: Streiner, Russell W.
Hardiman, Karl
Romero, George A.

DOA;a feature photoplay. By Cardinal Pictures, Inc.
Type of Work: Cancelled Registration
Cancelled Registration Number: RE0000005723
Registration canceled--in notice 1949, too late for renewal registration.
Title: DOA;a feature photoplay. By Cardinal Pictures, Inc.

Variant title: DOA
Names: Cardinal Pictures, Inc.

In the post 1989 world it seems anything goes. USCO dutifully gave Bob Hope his renewal certificate for "Road to Bali" even though his renewal was late (even if it did come with the condition that the renewal was legally invalid and that the USCO would not stand by it in court.)

Road to Bali. By Bing Crosby Enterprises, Inc. & Hope Enterprises, Inc.
Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000105899 / 1981-09-01
Renewal registration for: LP0000002200 / 1953-01-01 (in notice: 1952)
Title: Road to Bali. By Bing Crosby Enterprises, Inc. & Hope Enterprises, Inc.
Copyright Claimant: Bob Hope (PWH)
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.

Variant title: Road to Bali.
Names: Hope, Bob
Bing Crosby Enterprises, Inc.
Hope Enterprises, Inc.

So its not surprising that two registrations for "A Boy and His Dog" with fudged figures fell through the cracks.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-06-10 00:25:37

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Archfilm Date: Jul 27, 2011 4:45am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A BOY AND HIS DOG

The 1982 copyright was for an alternate version of the film, with "new footage added to the beginning." If the revised version had alterations that were creative, then it is able to be granted a new copyright.

The original version is still in the public domain.